Many types and configurations of display devices are known for use with computers. For various reasons, some of these have been pivotably mounted on a support structure. For instance, CRT monitors are often provided with tilt/swivel stands so that the position of the display can be adjusted for ergonomic reasons. In this case, the degree of permitted rotation is often very limited.
However, CRT monitors and flat panel displays have been proposed, and are becoming increasing popular, which are rotatable about an axis that is generally perpendicular to the display screen so that the screen can be viewed in either a landscape or portrait mode, see for instance U.S. Pat. No. 4,542,377 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,329,289.
This latter feature is used in wordprocessing and other office applications, enabling a full screen display of A4 page format on 14-15" screen diagonal.
Whilst existing systems of this type are no doubt satisfactory, they are not optimized from an ergonomic standpoint since generally they only provide a fixed central pivot point. In consequence, unless the monitor stand is provided with manual cabinet height adjustment, the height of the cabinet at landscape position would be too high if the cabinet is not to be stopped by the desktop or the base of the stand when rotating to portrait position.
Furthermore, the landscape and portrait positions in known systems are not simultaneously compatible with the well-established ergonomic rule that display height is well adjusted when the upper edge of the display screen is at eye level so that it is viewed perpendicularly by the user.
Even it the monitor stand is provided with a height adjustment mechanism, the user has twice to adjust the cabinet height when rotating the display--once to prevent it to be stopped by the desktop and a second time to comply with the ergonomic rule mentioned above.
As in normal use such displays are rotated quite often, this combination of movement and adjustment has been found to be somewhat inconvenient.
This invention aims to mitigate the above drawbacks of the prior art.